PR java/19285: Interfaces not initialized by static field access

Andrew Haley
Wed May 4 18:40:00 GMT 2005

Tom Tromey writes:
 > >>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <> writes:
 > Bryce> Yes, we should not be changing the ABI version number with every minor
 > Bryce> change, however, experimental versions should have a different version
 > Bryce> number to released versions - ie we should bump the version number the
 > Bryce> first time such a change is made on HEAD after a release. This will
 > Bryce> avoid confusion when binaries made with HEAD are accidentally run on
 > Bryce> an older release version.
 > Yeah.  I thought perhaps this patch was going in 4.0 as well, but I
 > don't see it there.

It's not yet tested.  Test away!

 > Bryce> How about something like this? Or would it be better to explicitly
 > Bryce> define each different version somewhere?
 > The compiler side of this looks reasonable to me.
 > On the runtime side I would prefer the addition of a new define and
 > explicit recognition of it.  I think it is better to be very clear
 > than to try to micro-optimize this.

I agree.  I'm still thinking about the compiler side of Bryce's patch,
but I'm inclining towards approval.


More information about the Java-patches mailing list